Mechanism behind intelligent design uncovered?

[Iacchus]

Please say which particular philosophical idea science cannot get away from.

Well, let's begin with the "idea" that science cannot perform any rudimentary task, without the means of a "functioning mind" ... what we would otherwise term as an "observer." Which of course explains our little dilemma here.

Oh, but I forgot: you only ask questions, and never say what you mean. It's like you're the Good Twin and hammy's the Evil Twin.

Or, perhaps if you gave the questions some thought yourself?

Please come back when you actually have a point of view.

Well, let me "think" about it, okay?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Well, let's begin with the "idea" that science cannot perform any rudimentary task, without the means of a "functioning mind" ... what we would otherwise term as an "observer." Which of course explains our little dilemma here.

No, you didn't explain "our" little dilemma here. Please do. Please say something.

The other parts of your post were --- guess what --- questions.

 

[Iacchus]

What is science, without the mind to dream it up? Indeed, how are we introduced to science, if not through our minds? If science is not based upon "philosophically" sound principles, how can you trust it?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Oh look, three more questions using undefined terms and not one single statement.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Indeed, I'll quote myself.

Please say something.

 

[Iacchus]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Indeed, I'll quote myself.

If we don't allow for questions, does this mean we have all the answers? Perhaps we shouldn't allow ourselves to get so bloated with what we "think" we know?

 

[Darat]

If we don't allow for questions, does this mean we have all the answers? Perhaps we shouldn't allow ourselves to get so bloated with what we "think" we know?

Yes and no.

 

[hammegk]

Or, perhaps if you gave the questions some thought yourself?

Some here apparently already know all answers, and for them thought is deemed unnecessary.

 

[stamenflicker]

Dr. A,

The problem with the stuff in the OP, and the stuff you've linked to, is that they are trying to get from some philosophical idea to a physical idea which is outlawed by the equations they're trying to philosophise about. The question of the origin of life in particular may be a chemical question, or it may be a theological question. It cannot be a case of some wonderful "philosophy" of quantum mechanics explaining how life popped out of nothing in a puff of logic, because that is not what the equations say.

I don't think the stuff I linked to is saying anything of the sort.

I also am quite certain that the OP and the stuff I linked to very different and linking them together is a misnomer. And the notion that McFadden's ideas are "some philosophical idea to a physical idea" is a poor summary of what this guy is trying to say, and furthermore the ideas are not "outlawed by the equations," it is in fact, a legitmate hypothesis because of the equations.

Again, it seems to me we are back to where we have always been divided, that being what is "legitmate scientific inquiry." The QM math leaves room for scientists to think creatively, experiment, and think some more. I fail to see why that is at all problematic or detrimental to the scientific method and to be honest, I really fail to see your problem with it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I fail to see why that is at all problematic or detrimental to the scientific method and to be honest, I really fail to see your problem with it.

I was carefully going through your post and trying to answer it point by point, and then I came across this.

And then I realised --- ah, that is what Flick doesn't understand.

Listen.

A scientific theory says something. It predicts what you will see if you look at the world under certain circumstances. That is the measure of its truthfulness.

Quantum mechanics says something. It predicts what you will see if you look at the world under certain circumstances. That is the measure of its truthfulness.

I gave as an example: QM says that light travels in straight lines, and does not say that light chases its tail in ever-decreasing circles.

It says what it says it says.

The reason why the stuff you've linked to, then, is "problematic or detrimental to the scientific method" is that it pretends to be the consequences of quantum mechanics but the reasoning has not been done.

And, indeed, if QM is correct then that reasoning can't be done.

 

[Beerina]

Let's say that you needed a good lubricant for, well, you know what.

Frying nice hot naan for dipping in delicious mater paneer and a nice spicey lamb vindaloo?

 

[pgwenthold]

Frying nice hot naan for dipping in delicious mater paneer and a nice spicey lamb vindaloo?

I recommend clarified butter.